On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:17:34 AM UTC-4, Mike Bayer wrote:
> So it seems clear that probably for 1.2 we will need to add a > comprehensive layer of being able to change what "IN" does, the choices > being "raise", "simple-false", "column-false", and probably some others, > and for starters it would be a dialect-level flag. I'd love to change > the default to "simple-false" too due to the above revelation that > databases can be coerced into admitting their opinion on this. > It would be nice if the engine configuration (or some option hook on the session) could override that. In a development environment, I would prefer to see empty `IN()` raise an error. That would help track down all the situations where this occurs, so code can handle the empty lists. This is with the understanding that certain implementors will never want an empty list sent to IN -- and that would be a bug/case in the application logic that was missed. In production, and for other situations, this approach would not be ideal. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
